posted
Below is an excerpt from an editorial. There is a link to the entire editorial at the bottom. The writer examines who is really "the Enemy" in the context of a 'war-game exercise run last week by the Department of Homeland Security.'
In that exercise - WE were the Enemy: We being people who express their opinions online. Kinda scary isn't it, to be designated by our government as 'the Enemy' for using our right to Freedom of Speech?
What do you think?
quote:They called it "Cyber Storm," and it was a war-game exercise run last week by the Department of Homeland Security. The war game had nothing to do with testing the security of our shipping ports, borders, infrastructure or airports. "Cyber Storm" was testing the government's ability to withstand an onslaught of information and protest from bloggers and online activists.
"Participants confirmed," wrote the Associated Press, that "parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events."
Say what? Online expressions of political opinion are so dangerous that the Department of Homeland Security must war-game scenarios to deal with them? Bloggers are potential terrorists now? Bloggers are the enemy? Last week, as far as DHS was concerned, they were.
We hear a great deal about enemies these days. Don't criticize the war, or you'll embolden the enemy. The enemy is clever and cruel. Stick with the White House and we'll defeat the enemy. Since the Bush administration no longer likes to mention the name Osama bin "Stayin' Alive" Laden in public, lest everyone remember a dramatic promise long broken, any specific definition of an enemy changes with the moment.
Sometimes, the enemy is in Iraq, and we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Sometimes, the enemy is in Iran, allegedly toiling with all its collective might to manufacture nuclear weapons. Sometimes, the enemy is in Palestine, where Hamas used George W. Bush's exported democracy to take over the government. Sometimes, the enemy is an American face on a television offering criticism of the White House. Last week, the enemy was a blogger making a political expression.
posted
I probably shouldn't bother, but here goes anyway:
Misinformation in a time of crisis is dangerous. Someone starts a rumor that there's a gas shortage. People start hoarding gas, creating a gas shortage. Someone starts putting out that Bridge X is down when Bridge Y really is. Even if people don't believe the rumors, they will also doubt the true information. People can die.
Further, we criminalize many forms of misinformation. You know that Enron thing: misinformation. Securities fraud doesn't have to be because of someone in the company. Push the stock, sell short, start a bad rumor about the company, make a mint.
The article is also very disingenuous, intentionally creating the impression that it's political speech being tolerated. "online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events" was almost certainly added by the reporter in the original stories as an explanation of what a blog is. The same language is in several stories on Cyber Storm.
Pitt uses this phrase (quoted without attribution by the way) to intentionally give the impression that DHS is targeting political opinions: "Online expressions of political opinion are so dangerous that the Department of Homeland Security must war-game scenarios to deal with them? Bloggers are potential terrorists now?"
The answer to the first question is "No." It's not political opinion, but misinformation, that was targeted. The answer to the second question is that bloggers are potential terrorists in the same way the pilots are potential terrorists - the mechanism can be used by terrorists, therefore there ought to be plans to respond to attacks using the mechanism.
This opening of this article is pure political hackery.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, are you not even mildly creeped out by this? It's often hard to tell, given your personal crusade for "accuracy," where your feelings -- which are, IMO, infinitely more important -- lie on any given issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, are you not even mildly creeped out by this? It's often hard to tell, given your personal crusade for "accuracy," where your feelings -- which are, IMO, infinitely more important -- lie on any given issue.
1. The government has a legitimate interest in combatting certain types of information.
2. Sometimes misinformation can result in dangerous conditions.
3. Despite the fact that blogs are also commonly used for the most protected forms of speech, it is more than merely feasible that terrorists could use blogs as a conduit of such misinformation as part of a larger attack.
4. Getting accurate information out over conflicting misinformation is a vital function of disaster - natural or man-made - management.
5. Practicing such a technique as part of a larger exercise to combat cyber-terrorism makes perfect logistical sense.
6. No recount has given any information about which counter-misinformation techniques were used, so I have no means of evaluating the acceptability of such techniques.
7. As this is a legitimate and necessary function of DHS, I have no reason to be "creeped out."
Although none of this seems much different than
quote:The answer to the first question is "No." It's not political opinion, but misinformation, that was targeted. The answer to the second question is that bloggers are potential terrorists in the same way the pilots are potential terrorists - the mechanism can be used by terrorists, therefore there ought to be plans to respond to attacks using the mechanism.
Edit: and all this needs to be tempered by the fact that we don't know anything about what really happened. This is all based on what we do know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dag, are you not even mildly creeped out by this? It's often hard to tell, given your personal crusade for "accuracy," where your feelings -- which are, IMO, infinitely more important -- lie on any given issue.
It creeps me out too Tom.
For some reason I feel like we just can't trust these people. Everytime they release 'information' I have to wonder if what they are SAYing is actully the tip of the iceberg. Too often that has been true.
Here is an article about the 'Cyber Storm' exercise from a tech magazine... DHS Weathers Cyber Storm
quote:Perhaps you're less skeptical of the government's definition of "misinformation" than I am.
Tom, why do you call me on the way I post - without telling you how I feel - when you're just giving throw-away one-liners in response? This is really better?
I've given lots of reasons for my lack creeped-outedness; you've given no analysis whatsoever about whether it is necessary to practice combating the types of misinformation I wrote about. Do you really think it's unnecessary for DHS to prepare for such things? If you do think such exercises are necessary, are there particular safeguards you'd like to see in place?
Come on - tell us what you think.
The article that started this thread totally mischaracterized the exercise. Why not call Silkie on posting misleading op-eds instead of calling me on pointing out the flaws in them?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the thing about the government's 'combatting of misinformation' is that it requires one to trust the government to not put out misinformation.
Edit: Let me expand to make more clear what about this creeps me out.
For the government to combat misinformation requires one of two things.
1) They find a way to put out the 'accurate' information such that everyone will see it and trust it.
2) They stop the stream of 'misinformation', either by blocking the person's method getting the information out and discrediting the source (at high speed, becuase info spreads fast on the net) or by silencing the source in other ways.
The whole problem with this senario is both ways require the absolute trust of the public in the government's ability to a) determine accurate information and b) actually put out the accurate information. Both methods of stopping misinformation give the government a rather large amount of control of information, period. Becuase the government would determine which information is 'misinformation' and which is 'accurate' information, regardless of which is actually which.
Now, the DHS may be doing this in good faith now. But if they gain the powers and tools to actually stop misinformation and then there's a change up in administration, it could put someone in place to actually spread misinformation and silence accurate information using the system designed to combat it. And considering what's been happening in our government recently, and what's happened in it in the past, where inteligence and information were concerned, I'm not at all happy with that power in its hands.
posted
Not the government. Teach people in the schools to closely examine all sources of information, especially with an eye toward the internet, and learn to weed out the bad ones. Such teaching is already being done, though with the schools as they are how well it is done varies greatly from place to place.
Before you trust a piece of information, make sure you track it down to a source you trust. Don't just trust any old blog or news group. Track it down to a legitimate news organization. Just as we do here.
Basically, imho, a whole lot of problems with our government could be fixed through our education system. But that requires working through our government. It's a frackin' chicken/egg problem.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that much of the information I'm talking about comes from the government - as in, the evacuation route, food distribution center, or safe water supply are where they are because the government put them there. The government needs to be the one who puts out the information.
Education, while a good thing, doesn't help with this except insofar as it instills trust in government sources of such information over other sources of such information.
This doesn't apply to political opinions, investment advice, etc., but it does apply to factual information.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok Dag, we're all obviously imagining something quite different than you are. It may be a result of the article above.
What sort of techniques for combatting misinformation are you imagining? And specifically what information should the government be aloud to use them on? How would you regulate it?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Not the government. Teach people in the schools to closely examine all sources of information, especially with an eye toward the internet, and learn to weed out the bad ones. Such teaching is already being done, though with the schools as they are how well it is done varies greatly from place to place.
Before you trust a piece of information, make sure you track it down to a source you trust. Don't just trust any old blog or news group. Track it down to a legitimate news organization. Just as we do here.
Good luck. I've been trying for years to get people to use Snopes before they pass on an e-mail and have not had any luck. I have corrected some of the same people 5 or 6 times each.
If you make something sound true and send it out in an e-mail (or better yet on a blog) people will believe it. The government needs some way to counteract it with with true information when it comes to things that are important (evacuation routes etc).
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
This doesn't apply to political opinions, investment advice, etc., but it does apply to factual information.
Determining what the 'factual information' really is has been a serious problem with this administration.
We are witness to what are at least mistakes in judgement on what the facts were by the current administration about Iraq. There were no WMDs, and we are locked into a war without end - or at least a long term war, according to Rumsfeld - based on at least misinterpreted facts.
Science is too often ignored, or silenced. Our President's science policies are often edited by personal opinion.
I can honestly say I don't trust the facts that our current administration puts out. They have provably lied, exaggerated, or misled too many times. We have what they say, and that has too often been different than what they do.
That's why this creeps me out. It smacks of Orwell.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so you prefer we not have anyone in authority prepare to counter concerted misinformation campaigns with potentially deadly results.
Yeah, I get it - you don't trust the administration. This isn't something I've discovered in this thread. It's been made abundantly clear by the accusations you've made.
However, for 3 more years, this is the administration we have. Do you want them to ignore this potential threat? Because I deeply suspect that were a concerted misinformation campaign to delay a necessary evacuation you'd be blaming the Bush administration for not being prepared.
You're still ignoring the distinction between different types of information - specifically, things like evacuation routes, shelter locations, water reliability, etc.
I'm asking one more time: if not the administration, who should be preparing to counter this potential threat?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't with the legitimate uses Dag, its with the illegitimate ones that could be maskeraded as legit ones. For example, how do you define misinformation? Say someone starts speculates on various military projects the government doesn't want info out about. Or starts making outrageous accusations against President Bush, obviously false, but people pick up on them and spread them. That's very political, but also very obviously misinformation, even slander. So they use the misinfo system to put it down. Then someone makes valid claims against Bush, true accusations. They could use the misinfo system to put that down too, claiming the allegations to be as outrageous as the first.
I agree we need some system of combatting misinfo campaigns, but I don't believe building an offensive system to attack it and putting it in the hands of the DHS is the way to go about it.
It'd be far better to simply have things like evacuation routes and shelter locations preplanned and publisized. Better yet, have a simple way (website, phone hotline) for people to get the right information and make it well known for each area. This should be well with in the abilities and jurisdiction of local government.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the entire net were floodied with hundreds of conflicting, yet all plausible stories in a time of crisis, it cou;d indeed cause mass chaos and unrest. Granted this puts in mind a massive conspiracy uniting people of such differing views on the same side as say KarlEd, and myself, which however unlikely could happen. The governments job is to be prepared for any constituancy, therefore they must prepare for this one as well.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you have brought up good points, and good reason for such a project to exist.
However, the rest have also brought up good points.
Here is another way to look at this debate: Crimminals should be kept away from society. The most efficient way we have of doing that for the moment is incarceration. So the government must have the authority to incarcerate those it says are crimminals.
People then worry that the government will incarcerate anyone it chooses. The solution is to create a system of laws, procedures and oversight to limit that government's power of incarceration.
Here we have the power of the government to control and limit the use of the internet for communications. In the event of an emergency, and in the event that it is being misused in that emergency, this power is vital for the safety of its people. However, if it is also possible that the government or some political organization will misuse this power for its own political gain, and for the detriment of the people.
The answer is to limit this power with laws, procedures, and OVERSIGHT. How do we do this? Contact your congressmen today and insist that they create such law today.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me: Specific suggestions about misinformation that can be dangerous and reasons why the government should respond in those situations.
Everyone else: I don't trust the government.
OK, fine. What do people suggest be done about this potential threat and what entity should do it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dagonne said that^
What people need to do is simple. Research. This administration, for whatever reasons, justified or not, has systematically misled people through its rhetoric. At the same time its enemies, OUR enemies, and our friends of differing opinions have done the same damn thing. All anyone can do is take in all sides of any story, and decide for themselves whats really going on. Do you really want somebody, ANYBODY, stoping you from reading any angle of any information? Even if it is B.S.? I didn't think so.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shepherd: If the entire net were floodied with hundreds of conflicting, yet all plausible stories in a time of crisis, it cou;d indeed cause mass chaos and unrest. Granted this puts in mind a massive conspiracy uniting people of such differing views on the same side as say KarlEd, and myself, which however unlikely could happen. The governments job is to be prepared for any constituancy, therefore they must prepare for this one as well.
Wow! I do believe I've become an Embodiment of the Opposition. At least to Shepherd, I guess. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe building an offensive system to attack it and putting it in the hands of the DHS is the way to go about it.
quote:Do you really want somebody, ANYBODY, stoping you from reading any angle of any information? Even if it is B.S.? I didn't think so.
Why are people assuming this is aimed at stopping anyone from reading anything? Once again, we don't know what techniques were used. They could have been backtracking the posters in an attempt to find them. They could have been inserting better information into the blogsphere. Or they could have been launching denial of service attacks at the bad information.
Further, there are times when speech should be surpressed. We've all heard the fire in a crowded theater. Think about yelling "smallpox attack" in a crowded city. Not only do we have the panicked evacuation that almost certainly will result in death, we also get people forming militias to keep the fleeing residents from entering their towns.
Damn straight, I want the government shutting that down.
quote:Here is another way to look at this debate: Crimminals should be kept away from society. The most efficient way we have of doing that for the moment is incarceration. So the government must have the authority to incarcerate those it says are crimminals.
This is exactly how I've been looking at it. The opening post of this thread said this plan was treating us like the enemy. It's not, anymore than training police officers to arrest people is treating us like the enemy.
quote:Here we have the power of the government to control and limit the use of the internet for communications. In the event of an emergency, and in the event that it is being misused in that emergency, this power is vital for the safety of its people. However, if it is also possible that the government or some political organization will misuse this power for its own political gain, and for the detriment of the people.
And I've been asking people to start listing what specific techniques should be used to do so. I missed Alcon's long post above - it was posted while I was composing my 1:03 post and I didn't notice it. It does a good job of outlining potential problems, but I absolutely disagree with any assertion that this power isn't needed.
My big complaint from the beginning has been the way this was spun by the op-ed writer, and the way I got called on the carpet by Tom for explaining why the op-ed was unfair. I'd still like to know what he actually thinks about this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the op-ed examined the worst case scenario. This is a machine, and a system. As such can be used for good or evil, depending on who is directing the parameters of the filter. Given the track record of this Administration, having alternative 'facts' become unavailable through a filtration system (facts which don't agree with the Administration's chosen version of the truth - edited just for our 'protection' of course!) is a distinct possibility through the MIS-use of this system.
Would YOU want to only be able to read what Karl Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al deems acceptible for our consumption? While the rest of the world knows ALL of the facts?
Think about this ... In a sense WE are the enemy, because 'we' want the truth - all versions of it - in order to personally decipher what the real truth is.
Through the unedited Internet that we now have easy access to, MANY points of view are available. with a little research it was easy to get a clearer view of what is really going on. It was easy to find out that this op-ed was a worst case scenario. Freedom of Information - all information - is important.
Consistantly this administration has insisted on disseminating an edited version of the truth. They discourage news and information agencies from printing alternative information, using 'National Security' as the excuse. Abu Ghraib, the Downing Street memos ... and how many other insights into the hidden workings of this administration ... would be eliminated if we did not have free access to what is on the Internet.
As for evacuation choices, routes and such being available this way... No one edited where evacuation routes were for Katrina. The information was widely available. The choice to evacuate was made as soon as it was clear where the storm was going. Hurricanes are not predictable until very near to land. In that case, it has been determined that mistakes were made at all levels of government.
There were much greater problems than evacuation routes at work. FEMA went from the most effective disaster relief system in the world to the crony-led crippled mess we see now, under this administrations watch. I think that we need to place natural disasters at a priority level and seperately from DHS.
After the WTC disaster the EPA did not issue FACTS about the on site air quality - it issued propeganda. Relief workers and first reponders didn't even used filtered masks at first because of that misinformation. THOUSANDS of people are now suffering from respiratory ailments because of that disinformation.
posted
or at least that is your version of the truth edited to coincide with your feelings about this Administration
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hurricane Katrina Investigation, written by a House subcommitte which was ENTIRLY Republican:
quote:Republicans' Report on Katrina Assails Administration Response
By Eric Lipton Published: February 13, 2006 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina. A draft of the report, to be issued by an 11-member, all-Republican committee, says the Bush administration was informed on the day Hurricane Katrina hit that the levees had been breached, even though the president and other top administration officials earlier said that they had learned of the breach the next day. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/politics/13katrina.html
quote:Katrina Report Spreads Blame Homeland Security, Chertoff Singled Out
By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 12, 2006
Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings of the threat to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that would have saved lives, according to a blistering report by House investigators http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101409.html
quote: Weather Warning Investigators have concluded that the federal government, even when it saw this dire warning from the National Weather Service, did not act as if it knew that local authorities would not be able to fend for themselves. Here is the warning, which was issued on the afternoon of Sunday, Aug. 28. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/national/nationalspecial/10katrina-docs.html?8dpc
World Trade Center Environmental Impact/health impact on cleanup/rescue workers
quote:Physical Health Status of World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers and Volunteers
--- New York City, July 2002--August 2004
In the months after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), concerns grew about the health consequences of exposures sustained by persons involved in the rescue and recovery response. In addition to the estimated 10,000 Fire Department of New York (FDNY) personnel, an estimated 30,000 other workers and volunteers potentially were exposed to numerous psychological stressors, environmental toxins, and other physical hazards. These concerns prompted CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to support the WTC Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program, which provided free, standardized medical assessments, clinical referrals, and occupational health education for workers and volunteers exposed to hazards during the WTC rescue and recovery effort. During July 16, 2002--August 6, 2004, the program evaluated 11,768 non-FDNY workers and volunteers. This report summarizes data analyzed from a subset of 1,138 of the 11,768 participants evaluated at Mount Sinai School of Medicine during July 16--December 31, 2002. These data indicated that a substantial proportion of participants experienced new-onset or worsened preexisting lower and upper respiratory symptoms, with frequent persistence of symptoms for months after their WTC response work stopped. These findings underscore the need for comprehensive health assessment and treatment for workers and volunteers participating in rescue and recovery efforts. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5335a1.htm
quote: After the Fall NRDC investigates why people living near Ground Zero didn't know about the invisible menace that remained. http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/02spr/field.asp
THIS is why we cannot trust the 'facts' fed to us by the current administration.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm dropping out of this discussion with one clarification: I have not advocated the "editing" of the Internet for any case other than those analogous to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater nor the restriction of free access to the Internet.
Neither is there any evidence that the exercise being complained about here used, advocated, hypothesized such editing or restriction of access.
To the extent that is what people are complaining about, they are not knowingly complaining about the exercise.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Weather Warning Investigators have concluded that the federal government, even when it saw this dire warning from the National Weather Service, did not act as if it knew that local authorities would not be able to fend for themselves. Here is the warning, which was issued on the afternoon of Sunday, Aug. 28.
Okay, what investigators? Was it a group of highly scientific people, or was it a small group of journalists who read some documents? Why can't they be more specific? Probably because their source is completely unreliable. And they did not act as if they knew local authorities couldn't handle this? Helloooo...This was BEFORE the storm! It's apparently wrong to have a little faith in people to do their job now? Come on! You say you can't trust the government? Fine. But then you turn around and trust the media completely. Every single word that comes out of a journalist's mouth is automatically completely true. I've found that it's almost impossible to trust anyone these days. I can't read any news without seeing the smackings of obvious bias anymore. Bias in a news story is one of the cardinal sins of journalism. But it happens all the time today, and no one does anything about it. So if you expect me to trust what some journalist is telling me, whether it's from the later articles listed here or the one in the very first post, I'm sorry. You aren't going to sway me with that kind of rhetorical vomit.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people are completely ignoring Dags arguments here.
Say a terrorist organization hacks into cnn.com or msnbc.com and puts on the front page a link to a story talking about how a nuclear bomb is going to be detonated in downtown NY within an hour.
What actions are taken and by whom to respond to this? Does the gov shut the webpage down? Can they, or do they have the technology in place to do it? How do they respond to the millions of people fleeing downtown NY? It is a scary situation that must be considered.
Now, before you go poking holes in my story or ignoring it all together, I'll counter it myself. The article talks about combating bloggers and internet activists. The reach of these sites/sources of information would most likely be minimal, but the situation must be addressed because with "deliberate misinformation" who knows what could happen. I'd much rather have the government policing this rather than a private organization. Sure, the government has been wrong before, many times, but the government has a vested interest in stopping misinformation. There are a number of reputable sources out there that people can get their information from, but there are those people who may go to blogs to learn things.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Funny how different it sounds from the editoral...
quote: For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary Contact: 202-786-9899 February 10, 2006
Washington, DC -- U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the completion of Cyber Storm, the first full-scale government-led cyber security exercise to examine response, coordination, and recovery mechanisms to a simulated cyber-event within international, federal, state, and local governments, in conjunction with the private sector. In total, 115 public, private, and international agencies, organizations, and companies were involved in the planning and implementation of Cyber Storm.
quote: The exercise simulated a sophisticated cyber attack through a series of scenarios directed against critical infrastructures. For example, one of the scenarios simulated a cyber incident where a utility company’s computer system is breached, causing numerous disruptions to the power grid. The intent of this scenario is to highlight the interconnectedness of cyber security with the physical infrastructure and to exercise coordination and communication between the public and private sectors. Each of the scenarios was developed with the assistance of industry experts and was executed in a closed and secure environment.
posted
Haha, and here we are getting all worked up over an editorial about misinformation that was actually creating a little misinfomration.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is definately something to be said about both sides of this argument, though for the most part if you look at what each side is saying, however, they aren't actually arguing against each other.
Dag has many good points that there needs to be some regulating body that has some system in place to ensure that accurate information along the lines of immediate public safety can be conveyed, and misinformation can be mitigated:
If not the government, then who? well, there might be reasonable third party candidates that are sufficiently trustworthy (such as the red cross etc...) but for now lets just say that in terms of manpower, budget, authority and security the government is what we have to work with here (set aside that many of us have issues with some of the "information" given by the government in other forums).
So this regulating body should have some method of: 1) ensuring that accurate information is available 2) doing something to mitigate misinformation
first there needs to be some sort of constraints on what this control applies to (i.e. evacuation plans etc... but not necessarily "is Bin Laden still alive" etc...)
second, how does one mitigate misinformation? you could go with the "all my eggs in once basket" approach of: "only information on www.emergency.gov is to be believed" though you then have to face the problem of what happens if that site is compromised?
or you could go with comparing multiple "reputable" sources (i.e. comparing AP, CNN, whatever.gov, BBC etc...) but this largely comes down to what sites/sources does each individual know to reference/believe. a negative example is that back in highschool we accidentally got a snow day we weren't supposed to because one out of a dozen of the local news stations accidentally reported that my school was out for the day...
Either way has flaws, and I think that we would all agree that some level of control needs to be exercised to prevent/mitigate things such as hackers disabling power grids and/or misinforming disaster relief details.
The second issue, which is linked but not directly related (and which many seem to be trying to argue against Dag's position in favor of this kind of exercise) is the issue of government limiting freedom of speech and how much we can trust the government on other issues (such as WMD etc)
1) If this exercise actually involved censoring blogs etc in any significant way then yes we should be concerned, but I seriously doubt that would be involved in this kind of HSD action. As mentioned, blogs etc are too informal and too limited in their impact to really be an issue (in my mind) on something like this. Honestly, even if OSC posted here what the best route to evacuate Greensburough (sp?) how many people would follow that over what the red cross or FEMA etc told you? (perhaps this is more of an issue than I initially think, but I have the feeling that the numbers would be small) Secondly, this kind of vital emergency information is not the kind that I see being part of most blogs and/or that people would go to them when searching for this information. If I'm looking for evacuation routes I'm going to be looking for official sources rather than my favorite political commentary site.
In the end most of this comes down to the fact that we have to know where to go looking for accurate information of whatever type we desire, and how to judge whether or not this information is accurate. (If 17 "reputable" news sources inform me that there is a bomb downtown I'm going to believe them, but if only CNN and no one else does then I'm gonna be questioning things.)
Yes, some steps need to be taken to deal with possible "attacks" on our sources of information, but at the same time we should be careful of incorrectly incriminating reputable sources of information as well.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
